Noida Court Imposes Nominal Penalty in Wedding Firearms Case
An additional chief judicial magistrate court in Noida delivered a remarkably lenient sentence on Wednesday to a man found guilty of permitting his son to utilize his licensed revolver for celebratory gunfire during a wedding ceremony. The case highlights the judicial discretion exercised in firearms violations under the Arms Act.
Details of the Judicial Ruling
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mayank Tripathy sentenced Anil Chouhan, a resident of Sector 53, Noida, to detention "till the rise of the court" and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000. This sentence effectively means Chouhan was detained only for the duration of the court session on Wednesday. The conviction was under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, which addresses violations of firearm license conditions.
The court determined that Chouhan had illegally handed his licensed revolver to his son, Nitish Chouhan, who lacked any firearm license. Nitish used the weapon for celebratory firing during his cousin's marriage ceremony in 2022. Despite the offense carrying potential penalties of up to six months imprisonment, a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both, the magistrate opted for minimal punishment.
Background and Investigation of the Incident
The case originated when a video depicting celebratory gunfire at the wedding began circulating on social media platforms in September 2022. After Uttar Pradesh Police was tagged in the social media post, Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar launched an investigation that identified Nitish Chouhan as the individual seen firing the weapon.
Further police inquiry revealed the revolver belonged to his father, Anil Chouhan, who held a valid firearm license. Consequently, authorities registered a case at Sector 24 police station on September 19, 2022, and booked Anil Chouhan under Section 30 of the Arms Act. The weapon was seized, and police filed a chargesheet in December 2022.
Court Proceedings and Witness Testimony
During the trial, the prosecution faced a setback when one of their key witnesses, Nishant Mishra, who had originally reposted the viral video online, turned hostile. Mishra denied having identified the person seen firing in the video, claiming he had merely flagged the clip to draw police attention to the incident.
Despite this witness turning hostile, the court relied on corroborative testimony from other prosecution witnesses and comprehensive police records. The judge referenced a Supreme Court ruling that established the evidence of a hostile witness need not be entirely discarded if certain portions still support the prosecution's case.
Judicial Reasoning and Final Determination
The defense argued that the absence of independent public witnesses weakened the prosecution's case. However, the court rejected this contention, stating the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused violated his firearm license conditions by allowing an unlicensed person to use his weapon.
In delivering the sentence, Magistrate Tripathy took a lenient view of the circumstances and ruled that confiscation of the firearm was not warranted. The judgment emphasizes how courts balance strict legal provisions with contextual considerations in firearms violation cases, particularly when no direct harm resulted from the celebratory firing incident.
